|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 17, 2006 14:39:35 GMT -5
Well, that's a lot of subjectivity isn't it? You want in on a little secret? The world we see around us is subjective. Reason: we see it through human eyes and interpret it with human brains. We just call somethin objective when we expect it to be and behave the same in similar situations repeatedly. As you said before, there's no such thing as impossible - there's only improbable.
I think a better choice of words would have been likely. How likely is it that Minako and Rei ARE homosexual, and in that assumption, how likely are they to be in a relationship with each other? The first one wouldn't be nearly as likely as the second one, should the first one be true, don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 19, 2006 22:39:04 GMT -5
Well, that's a lot of subjectivity isn't it? You want in on a little secret? The world we see around us is subjective. Reason: we see it through human eyes and interpret it with human brains. We just call somethin objective when we expect it to be and behave the same in similar situations repeatedly. And this is what's known as the relitivist fallacy. As you said before, there's no such thing as impossible - there's only improbable. And this is what's known as taking things out of context. I think a better choice of words would have been likely. How likely is it that Minako and Rei ARE homosexual, and in that assumption, how likely are they to be in a relationship with each other? The first one wouldn't be nearly as likely as the second one, should the first one be true, don't you agree? And this is circular reasoning. "The first one isn't as likely as the second one if the first one is true..." Think about that. The second one is more likely to be true than the first if the first is true? So if the first is true the second is more likelrey to be true than . . . something that is already true? Keep grasping at straws there, you might just fins one to keep your argument afloat, as full of holes as it is. . .
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 20, 2006 3:39:28 GMT -5
Sponges are full of holes, and they float just fine, thank you. Wiki:The possible relationship between Minako and Rei is non-objective, correct? As such, relativist fallacy does not apply to it according to the above quote. And how am I taking things out of context? The fact that Minako and Rei could very well become a couple, should ANY particular detail run differently in the series in a (possible) alternate universe? Isn't that what your whole 'there's no impossible, there's only improbable' theory was based on? Circular reasoning? No, you're missing the point (or choose to miss it, and as such, bring my text out of context). You're a logic kind guy, you of all SMO members should know what I meant with that. There may not be a very big chance that Rei and Minako are (both) into girls. However, should they be, then chances are quite large that they'd find each other. These two probabilities (NOT possibilities) have little to do with each other. In fact, they're not even dependent on each other (considering the fact that Rei and Minako might not even be lesbians in order to love each other - there's some food for thought ya'allz).
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 20, 2006 5:16:36 GMT -5
Sponges are full of holes, and they float just fine, thank you. Wiki:The possible relationship between Minako and Rei is non-objective, correct? Nope, either it is or it isn't. It's not up for opinion if two people are a couple. As such, relativist fallacy does not apply to it according to the above quote. And unfortunatly it does to your reasoning that it can be someone's opinion as to wether or not two people are together. And how am I taking things out of context? Because in context its refering to the infinite reality theorum. Things might not be possible in THIS dimension, but they might be possible in another dimension. It's perfectly fine for things to be impossible. Like my mouse suddenly sprouting wings and flying away. The fact that Minako and Rei could very well become a couple, should ANY particular detail run differently in the series in a (possible) alternate universe? We're not talking about alternate universes, we're talking about the canon of either the manga(no relationship evidence exists) and the Anime(no relationship evidence exists). Not fanfiction or doujinshi. Isn't that what your whole 'there's no impossible, there's only improbable' theory was based on? Correct. Circular reasoning? No, you're missing the point (or choose to miss it, and as such, bring my text out of context). You're a logic kind guy, you of all SMO members should know what I meant with that. Aye, and I pointed out that it was circular reasoning. There may not be a very big chance that Rei and Minako are (both) into girls. Until proven we have to go with what is shown. Rei went out on a date with Mamoru in the anime. Minako went out with two of the males of the amazon trio. Minako tried to get Taiki and Yaten to go with her to an adult oriented movie, and in the anime they are male. We have evidence that they are into guys. We have no evidence that they are not. Until you provide any proof the possability of them being into girls, let alone each other is 0%. And we are not discussing anything other that the different canon realms. However, should they be, then chances are quite large that they'd find each other. These two probabilities (NOT possibilities) It's neither probable nor possible without evidence. have little to do with each other. In fact, they're not even dependent on each other (considering the fact that Rei and Minako might not even be lesbians in order to love each other - there's some food for thought ya'allz). We're not talking about plutonic love. So in order to have a romantic love for one another I'm affraid that they very much have to be able to be into girls.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 20, 2006 9:40:08 GMT -5
Sponges are full of holes, and they float just fine, thank you. Wiki:Nope, either it is or it isn't. It's not up for opinion if two people are a couple. And unfortunatly it does to your reasoning that it can be someone's opinion as to wether or not two people are together. Unless not openly expressed, which brings speculation into play. And with speculation, subjectivity. Especially since we're talkin about fiction in the first place, it would be quite hard to claim their sexual preferences 'objective'. Only the creator could give answer to that. Because in context its refering to the infinite reality theorum. Things might not be possible in THIS dimension, but they might be possible in another dimension. Does that mean I can't apply it anywhere else, even if we're talkin about (one of) said dimensions? We're not talking about Newton's laws, but surely I've seen Minako hit the deck several times. Sure, you're gonna say those two events are completely independent from each other, right? It's perfectly fine for things to be impossible. Like my mouse suddenly sprouting wings and flying away. Suddenly is relative. To a computer, the snap of a finger or the blink of an eye is not suddenly. To the world, the evolutionary stages a bird underwent to grow wings and learn how to fly is 'suddenly'. We're not talking about alternate universes, we're talking about the canon of either the manga(no relationship evidence exists) and the Anime(no relationship evidence exists). And what relationship evidence of them being heterosexual exists? Answer: none. They chase boys, yes, but neither ever has a real relationship (not even the relationship between Rei and Mamoru was a REAL relationship - it was more of Rei picking on Usagi by stealing her bf). Not fanfiction or doujinshi. Neither was I, kiddo. How does this relate to the topic at hand? Aye, and I pointed out that it was circular reasoning. By misinterpreting the quotation. Until proven we have to go with what is shown. Rei went out on a date with Mamoru in the anime. Minako went out with two of the males of the amazon trio. Minako tried to get Taiki and Yaten to go with her to an adult oriented movie, and in the anime they are male. And what if what is shown is subject to speculation? You sound like a priest quoting the bible and giving a certain interpretation to it. We have evidence that they are into guys. We have no evidence that they are not. Until you provide any proof the possability of them being into girls, let alone each other is 0%. And we are not discussing anything other that the different canon realms. *sigh* Again, homosexuality is a sensitive subject. Refer to my previous statements regarding this. It's neither probable nor possible without evidence. What if the evidence is not shown? have little to do with each other. In fact, they're not even dependent on each other (considering the fact that Rei and Minako might not even be lesbians in order to love each other - there's some food for thought ya'allz). We're not talking about plutonic love. So in order to have a romantic love for one another I'm affraid that they very much have to be able to be into girls. And why would plutonic love not be counted as the kind of love between Minako and Rei, considering it's the most probable kind of love between them one could come up with, taking the series into consideration? They're too young to get physical, don't you think? Maybe it's because it would put everything in an entirely different spot, making your arguments that much weaker?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 20, 2006 22:45:34 GMT -5
And why would plutonic love not be counted as the kind of love between Minako and Rei, Plutonic love is the kind of love between two friends. Between family members as a mother/daughter mother/son. Etc. Romantic love is the love between lovers, husband/wife, boyfriend girlfriend. the romantic relationship that is being discussed inthis thread is not a plutonic love. considering it's the most probable kind of love between them one could come up with, taking the series into consideration? They're too young to get physical, don't you think? Not in the slightest considering that Usagi is around their age and she got physical with Mamoru even before they got married in the manga. Maybe it's because it would put everything in an entirely different spot, making your arguments that much weaker? Or you know you're using to independant things interchangably in an intelectually dishonest way. You know that this thread is discussing a romantic relationship. and that a plutonic love is not the kind of love that is felt between lovers. In order for them to have a relationship as lovers they'd have to have a romantic love. Without any evidence of this you cannot say that any such romantic relationship exists without romantic love. and without evidence of a romantic love or an attraction to the same sex you cannot claim that they are or even that they possibly are because it has no basis in the cannon rteality that we are discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 21, 2006 5:50:05 GMT -5
And why would plutonic love not be counted as the kind of love between Minako and Rei, Plutonic love is the kind of love between two friends. Between family members as a mother/daughter mother/son. Etc. Romantic love is the love between lovers, husband/wife, boyfriend girlfriend. the romantic relationship that is being discussed inthis thread is not a plutonic love. Ugh ... dude, I thought you meant platonic love. I'm talkin about the kind of love that surpasses normal friendship but in which horizonal sports are non-existant. Not in the slightest considering that Usagi is around their age and she got physical with Mamoru even before they got married in the manga. See my above reaction. Maybe it's because it would put everything in an entirely different spot, making your arguments that much weaker? Or you know you're using to independant things interchangably in an intelectually dishonest way. You know that this thread is discussing a romantic relationship. and that a plutonic love is not the kind of love that is felt between lovers. Platonic ... again, refer to the mixup explanation above. In order for them to have a relationship as lovers they'd have to have a romantic love. Without any evidence of this you cannot say that any such romantic relationship exists without romantic love. and without evidence of a romantic love or an attraction to the same sex you cannot claim that they are or even that they possibly are because it has no basis in the cannon rteality that we are discussing. The last sentence of this quote block would still make perfect sense if you replaced 'same sex' with 'different sex'. I hope you realize that.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 21, 2006 16:35:15 GMT -5
Plutonic love is the kind of love between two friends. Between family members as a mother/daughter mother/son. Etc. Romantic love is the love between lovers, husband/wife, boyfriend girlfriend. the romantic relationship that is being discussed inthis thread is not a plutonic love. Ugh ... dude, I thought you meant platonic love. I'm talkin about the kind of love that surpasses normal friendship but in which horizonal sports are non-existant. No such thing. Without the physical attraction it is merely platonic. With, its romantic. There is no inbetween. See my above reaction. Platonic ... again, refer to the mixup explanation above. In order for them to have a relationship as lovers they'd have to have a romantic love. Without any evidence of this you cannot say that any such romantic relationship exists without romantic love. and without evidence of a romantic love or an attraction to the same sex you cannot claim that they are or even that they possibly are because it has no basis in the cannon rteality that we are discussing. The last sentence of this quote block would still make perfect sense if you replaced 'same sex' with 'different sex'. I hope you realize that. So due to your inability to deal with what I said you give into the ad hominem trap that I laid out for you and attacked how I said it? I accept your resignation from this debate. and no I'm sorry "different sex" does not apply because we are specifically talking about a same sex couple. Again attacking how I said something rather than the point in and of itself. Since you did not further add to the conversation thread I accept your resignation since you had to make up something that doesn't exist. . . again.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 22, 2006 5:25:00 GMT -5
Ugh ... dude, I thought you meant platonic love. I'm talkin about the kind of love that surpasses normal friendship but in which horizonal sports are non-existant. No such thing. Without the physical attraction it is merely platonic. With, its romantic. There is no inbetween. Okay, I'll explain it in simple terms: love is analog. Not digital. You can't express love like you can express a byte. There is no 'is' or 'isn't' when it comes to love. You know why? Because it's an EMOTION. See my above reaction. Platonic ... again, refer to the mixup explanation above. The last sentence of this quote block would still make perfect sense if you replaced 'same sex' with 'different sex'. I hope you realize that. So due to your inability to deal with what I said you give into the ad hominem trap that I laid out for you and attacked how I said it? I accept your resignation from this debate. Playing on the man I see. Well, I'm not biting, kiddo. The fact that 'different sex' relationships are almost EXPECTED in today's rotten society makes you wanna cover up more or less, should you be more into the 'same sex' relationships. Stick to the topic please. and no I'm sorry "different sex" does not apply because we are specifically talking about a same sex couple. Again attacking how I said something rather than the point in and of itself. Ah, so you agree that they DO have a same sex relationship? Since you did not further add to the conversation thread I accept your resignation since you had to make up something that doesn't exist. . . again. That decision is mine and mine alone, unless delegated by me. And what exactly did I 'make up'? A same sex relationship between Minako and Rei? Afaik, that's the entire topic.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 25, 2006 20:28:18 GMT -5
No such thing. Without the physical attraction it is merely platonic. With, its romantic. There is no inbetween. Okay, I'll explain it in simple terms: love is analog. Not digital. You can't express love like you can express a byte. There is no 'is' or 'isn't' when it comes to love. You know why? Because it's an EMOTION. That would be the subverted support fallacy. But the language is specific. If there is a romantic/sexual attraction it is not platonic. If there is no sexual or romantic attraction it is platonic. Anything greater than 0 is not zero. Regardless of the principal subject. As 1 can never equal 0. Playing on the man I see. Well, I'm not biting, kiddo. The fact that 'different sex' relationships are almost EXPECTED in today's rotten society makes you wanna cover up more or less, should you be more into the 'same sex' relationships. Stick to the topic please. This coming from a person who first brought up "The last sentence of this quote block would still make perfect sense if you replaced 'same sex' with 'different sex'. I hope you realize that."? How highly hypocritical. And don't play that "You don't know me! You don't know me!" card again. Because I hate to break it to you but I know quite a bit about you. Ah, so you agree that they DO have a same sex relationship? Putting words into my mouth. A strawman argument. Any relationship that they would have would have to be a same sex relationship. as they are both the same sex. What I'm disputing is the fact that they would even have a romantic relationship in the first place. That decision is mine and mine alone, unless delegated by me. And what exactly did I 'make up'? A same sex relationship between Minako and Rei? Afaik, that's the entire topic. You made up a third type of love that simply does not exist. And you still have yet to post any evidence supporting the theory that anything other than a plutonic relationship even exists between them. Now can we stick to the topic with out any more of your Spurious Superficiality fallacies or martyr fallacies or even the Shifting Meaning fallacies that you love that got us into this tangent in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 26, 2006 2:06:21 GMT -5
Okay, I'll explain it in simple terms: love is analog. Not digital. You can't express love like you can express a byte. There is no 'is' or 'isn't' when it comes to love. You know why? Because it's an EMOTION. That would be the subverted support fallacy. But the language is specific. If there is a romantic/sexual attraction it is not platonic. If there is no sexual or romantic attraction it is platonic. Anything greater than 0 is not zero. Regardless of the principal subject. As 1 can never equal 0. Question: how do you define 0 in this? You can say '0 = no love and 1 = love', but where does platonic love go and where does romantic love go, and more importantly, where does lust go? This coming from a person who first brought up "The last sentence of this quote block would still make perfect sense if you replaced 'same sex' with 'different sex'. I hope you realize that."? Hey, don't look at me. If I were God and had created to world, I'd be meddling with pplz' hatred for homosexuality alright, amongst other things. Point is, there's a difference between what you feel and how you act. I used to pick on girls that I liked. Try the whole cooties thing. How highly hypocritical. And don't play that "You don't know me! You don't know me!" card again. Because I hate to break it to you but I know quite a bit about you. I know you do, but that's not the topic, now is it? Putting words into my mouth. A strawman argument. Any relationship that they would have would have to be a same sex relationship. as they are both the same sex. What I'm disputing is the fact that they would even have a romantic relationship in the first place. You mean 'with each other', correct? Well, I'm defending it. That decision is mine and mine alone, unless delegated by me. And what exactly did I 'make up'? A same sex relationship between Minako and Rei? Afaik, that's the entire topic. You made up a third type of love that simply does not exist.[/quote] The missing element is called 'lust'. There IS such a thing as a romantic relationship without lust. You cannot say that those two are synonyms. And you still have yet to post any evidence supporting the theory that anything other than a plutonic relationship even exists between them. Afaik, Michael Jackson was found not guilty in his latest trial, not by giving evidence, but by doubting the existing evidence against him. Now can we stick to the topic with out any more of your Spurious Superficiality fallacies or martyr fallacies or even the Shifting Meaning fallacies that you love that got us into this tangent in the first place. Sure. You're just jealous I can get us on a tangent when you can't (reference to all the times you tried to get personal).
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 26, 2006 7:04:31 GMT -5
That would be the subverted support fallacy. But the language is specific. If there is a romantic/sexual attraction it is not platonic. If there is no sexual or romantic attraction it is platonic. Anything greater than 0 is not zero. Regardless of the principal subject. As 1 can never equal 0. Question: how do you define 0 in this? You can say '0 = no love and 1 = love', but where does platonic love go and where does romantic love go, and more importantly, where does lust go? You want I should fetch you a dictionary? Hey, don't look at me. If I were God and had created to world, I'd be meddling with pplz' hatred for homosexuality alright, amongst other things. Point is, there's a difference between what you feel and how you act. What does this have to do with anything? I used to pick on girls that I liked. Try the whole cooties thing. I never did. But that's neither here nor there. I know you do, but that's not the topic, now is it? No, picking on girls because of cooties... no, wait. If I were god... no wait... You mean 'with each other', correct? Well, I'm defending it. And without any evidence. Sorry, But it's just not canon. it may exist as such in fanfiction. But they are not a couplke. that's just the way things are. The missing element is called 'lust'. Lust is not love. There IS such a thing as a romantic relationship without lust. You cannot say that those two are synonyms. You can't even say that you can have a lust based love for someone... Cause well, lust is not a form of love. So lets go over this again. Romantic love: There is physical attraction. Platonic: There is no physical attraction. What's the third type? Oh that's right there isn't one. Afaik, Michael Jackson was found not guilty in his latest trial, not by giving evidence, but by doubting the existing evidence against him. Right, but that's not the way things work here. In court emotional appeal is an element used to win cases. In regular debate its an invalid logical fallacy. Sure. You're just jealous I can get us on a tangent when you can't (reference to all the times you tried to get personal). Yeah, I'm also the queen of scotland. Feel free to join us in reality Zyppo. It's really not that bad... Nothing to compare to your fantasy world I'd wager. But its liveable.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Sept 26, 2006 8:04:40 GMT -5
Question: how do you define 0 in this? You can say '0 = no love and 1 = love', but where does platonic love go and where does romantic love go, and more importantly, where does lust go? You want I should fetch you a dictionary? One that indexes emotions on a scale of natural numbers? Please do. What does this have to do with anything? You really want me to repeat myself? Here, pay attention this time: 'Point is, there's a difference between what you feel and how you act.'Minako + Rei: Act: heterosexual Feel: [ ... ] Fill in the blanks please. And without any evidence. Sorry, But it's just not canon. it may exist as such in fanfiction. But they are not a couplke. that's just the way things are. Refer to reply #11 on Sept 14, 2006, 21:51. KTHXBYE. Lust is not love. You can't even say that you can have a lust based love for someone... Cause well, lust is not a form of love. So lets go over this again. Romantic love: There is physical attraction. Platonic: There is no physical attraction. What's the third type? Oh that's right there isn't one. - Platonic - Romantic with lust - Romantic without lust where lust equals physical attraction. I think even my 3 year old bro could understand this, but PLEASE don't go posting something that'll make you look like you didn't understand it. Right, but that's not the way things work here. In court emotional appeal is an element used to win cases. In regular debate its an invalid logical fallacy. And you were the one who made up the rules? Tell me, if emotional appeal is invalid, why are you trying so hard to go ad hominem? Sure. You're just jealous I can get us on a tangent when you can't (reference to all the times you tried to get personal). Yeah, I'm also the queen of scotland. Feel free to join us in reality Zyppo. It's really not that bad... Nothing to compare to your fantasy world I'd wager. But its liveable. Scotland is not a kingdom, and therefor can't have a queen. It's part of the United Kingdom, governed by Queen Elizabeth 2. Scots drink a lot of alcohol, but even after copious amounts I'd seriously doubt they'd proclaim you as their leader, even when wearing a dress. Lastly, Scotland is the name of a country, and should be capitalized. But that's offtopic, not to mention ad hominem (or should I say, ad fundum?)
|
|
|
Post by engineer on Sept 26, 2006 14:55:59 GMT -5
I have seen this claim one too many times on one too many forums, so I am joining the crusade to once and for all end the rumor that Rei and Minako are lesbians in the manga. ...Ok that may have sounded a bit over-dramatized, but seriously, hear me out. There's a scene in the manga the people often reference in which Minako and Rei tell the Starlights, "We already have just one person to whom we've dedicated our lives. We don't need men." In that scene (vol. 16 ch.45 in the Stars manga) Rei and Minako are not saying that they are lovers. They are saying that they don't need men because they have a destiny to protect Usagi. They will live for their princess and no one else. (This, sadly, also killed all the dreams of Senshi/Shitennou shippers like me.) A lot of people misinterpreted this because they only read the translation, and out of context it does sound like Minako and Rei are talking about each other. But while they're talking there's an image of Usagi with angel wings shown, confirming that they are referring to her. Look, I'm not saying that people can't write MinaxRei fanfiction if they really want to. But please, stop calling it canon! Ok, I'm done ranting... until next time! At least the ReixMinako fans do have a basis for romance citing the manga scenes. Though the basis for ReixUsagi and even GalaxiaxUsagi is much much weaker. I don't have a problem with senshixsenshi romance either, just the abrupt pairing of them for the sake of it with weak arguements is not my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Sept 26, 2006 18:46:59 GMT -5
You want I should fetch you a dictionary? One that indexes emotions on a scale of natural numbers? Please do. onelook.com/?w=platonic&ls=aFree from (meaning zero) physical desire. Take your pick. You really want me to repeat myself? Here, pay attention this time: 'Point is, there's a difference between what you feel and how you act.'Minako + Rei: Act: heterosexual Feel: [ ... ] Fill in the blanks please. Heterosexual. Minako was arroused at the thought of Yaten(thinking Yaten is male). She even got a bloody nose, which you know what that means in anime. You have any evidence to the contrary? Refer to reply #11 on Sept 14, 2006, 21:51. KTHXBYE. Refer to post #12... Duh. - Platonic - Romantic with lust - Romantic without lust where lust equals physical attraction. Sorry, but every romantion relationship has at least a little physical attraction. So the only thing you're chaning is the amount of physical attraction. No physical attraction means that it's platonic. I'm sorry but you're trying once again to create something that doesn't exist. I think even my 3 year old bro could understand this, I doubt your three year old bro would have much of a concept of lust... at least I sure as hell hope not. but PLEASE don't go posting something that'll make you look like you didn't understand it. Why not? You seem to do that with every post. And you were the one who made up the rules?[]/quote] Nope. Tell me, if emotional appeal is invalid, why are you trying so hard to go ad hominem? To get you emotional so you screw up even more than you normally do. I'm not sure if you understand yet that my ad hominem personal attacks have no emotional attachtment for me. But they do for you, so you get emotional. Not me. Scotland is not a kingdom, Gee, I didn't know that... and therefor can't have a queen. I get the distinct feeling you didn't pick up the sarcasm of my statement. Tell me you didn't take me seriously when I said I'm something that I'm not? It's part of the United Kingdom, governed by Queen Elizabeth 2. Scots drink a lot of alcohol, but even after copious amounts I'd seriously doubt they'd proclaim you as their leader, even when wearing a dress. Lastly, Scotland is the name of a country, and should be capitalized. Please don't let me stop you from making a post that shows you don't understand what the hell I just said. Oh wait, too late... You just did. But that's offtopic, not to mention ad hominem (or should I say, ad fundum?) Yeah, once again you contradict yourself. "You're just jealous I can get us on a tangent when you can't " "ONLY I'M ALLOWED TO TAKE US OFF TOPIC!" Right... and I'm the queen of scotland.
|
|